Ideas to Action:
Independent research for global prosperity
World Bank President Jim Kim is hoping the bank’s 189 shareholders will agree to increase the current capital of the bank’s “hard” window sometime in 2018. But the US wants to link any support for a recapitalization to World Bank “graduating” China—and perhaps other member countries with good access to private capital markets who don’t seem to “need” the World Bank. There are sensible arguments on both sides of this divide.
Several thousands gathered in the port city of Busan in Korea (the fifth largest port in the world) this past week at the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (#HLF4 on twitter). More than 100 ministers (mostly of development cooperation) attended. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, President Lee of Korea, President Kagame of Rwanda and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the opening plenary. Clinton is the first U.S. secretary of state to attend an aid forum.
This post was originally featured on Owen Barder’s Owen Abroad: Thoughts on Development and Beyond blog.
Will the largest aid donors hide behind China to excuse their inability to make substantial improvements in foreign aid? How can Busan balance the desire to be more universal with the pressing need for real changes in the way aid is given?
In a recent piece published in Foreign Affairs, Francis Fukuyama and I argue that, post global economic crisis, we are witnessing a shift away from the Western free-market or neo-liberal economic model in the developing world. In an essay in our forthcoming book (New Ideas on Development after the Financial Crisis), I suggest that developing country political leaders, particularly in low-income countries, co
Mubarak has resigned. Next steps in Egypt are uncertain, but it’s certain that authoritarian rulers around the world are watching these events with great trepidation.
What’s the lesson that China and the 102 of 160 developing countries around the world that are “partly free” or “unfree” (see Freedom House) are taking from Egypt and Tunisia? And is there a lesson for Western donors?
China recently announced it will reduce the emissions-intensity of its economy (ratio of emissions to GDP) by at least 40-45 percent by 2020. But in Copenhagen it is resisting making that promise an internationally binding commitment. That’s a big problem for the U.S. negotiators, since the Congress is adamant: the U.S. will not commit until and unless the Chinese do too.
In contrast to Davos-in-NY in 2002, when the post-Sept. 11 talk was of the risk of terror and Davos 2003 when the corridor discussion was mostly about Iraq and the impending war, there is no grand obsession this year. There is sensible and mildly worried talk about whether the global economic recovery will be sustained. Most attention is given to the imbalances in the world economy – particularly U.S. budget and current account deficits; the Europeans’ tepid growth and stolid Central Bank reluctance to stimulate; and the Chinese resistance to letting their currency appreciate.
Commentary Menu